The Constitution is not unchangeable
. The act of changing it is not violating the oath to protect it. If so, every amendment has been a violation of oath by the members of Congress who had a part in it. The only question for the courts would be, "If a treaty specifically contradicts the Constitution, as it is currently amended, which prevails? The Constitution or the treaty?"
I fear they would go with the treaty, which is why we must be vigilant. We must lobby the Senate heavily anytime the president signs a treaty that might give up sovereignty or individual rights.
I think you misunderstood me. The Constitution is subject to being amended providing the proposed change(s) go through the allowable process. I think all of us understand and agree that was the intent of the Founders. Otherwise they would never have included that provision in the document. It is the Bill of Rights which is unchangeable. My example was, as stated, far fetched in that I picked something which was contained within the document and that was capable of being altered by the Constitutional process, but not by some treaty agreement.
That's all I meant.
I understand what you are saying. I just think you are horribly wrong.
The president, merely by signing a treaty, his constitutional power, is not violating his oath. That is simply your opinion, and not based in fact at all.
If he signs a treaty that gets ratified by the Senate that changes the provisions of the Constitution, the courts will address which takes precedence, the Constitution or the treaty. However, even if the courts say the Constitution prevails, and the president fails in his attempt to change it via treaty, he has done nothing worse than when he signs a bill into law that is later ruled unconstitutional.
Oh, and I don't kinow why people insist on repeating that bilge that somehow the BoR is unamendable. Nothing in the Constitution says so.
Anyway, tell me I am misunderstanding you again. I won't reply. I am done with this little sub-thread.